Robert Taft SJ
How Liturgies Grow:
The Evolution of the Byzantine “Divine Liturgy”
Orientalia Christiana Periodica XLIII, Roma 1977, p. 8-30
In this paper I would like to locate the evolution of the Byzan-
tine eucharist within the larger context of liturgical history,
using it as a “model” or “case study” from which to draw some
general methodological principles applicable, I believe, to the
growth of all rites.
STAGES OF RITUAL HISTORY
The history of the eucharistic service can be divided into sev-
eral periods:
1) In the period of initial information the Lord’s Supper is sepa-
rated from the agape, the World services becomes perma-
nently joined to it, and the “first statum” of that Dom Gregory
Dix called the “classical shape of the liturgy”1 emerges by the
middle of the 2d century in the Apology of Justin Martyr (I, 65,
67):
Readings
Preaching
Common prayers
Kiss of peace
Transfer of gifts
Prayer over the gifts (anaphora)
(fraction)2
communion
(dismissal)
2) The second period is the period of Church Orders, when
written formularies, i. e. actual texts, first appear.3 All of them
differ, showing that there was no one “apostolic liturgy” from
which they derived. Yet all of them follow the same basic out-
line first seen in Justin’s Apology.
3) After the peace of Constantine in 313, when Christian wor-
ship became the public ceremonial of a church freed from civil
restraints and fast becoming an important social force, liturgi-
cal development quickened. It is in this period that we first
hear of the rite of Byzantium. Indeed, this rite can be said to be
1 As Baumstark wrote: “It seems to be of the nature of Liturgy to relate
The Shape of the Liturgy, London 1945, 2nd edition.
2
Justin does not mention the fraction and dismissal, but they are part
of the classical shape.
3
Beginning with the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, c. 215.
characterize this stage of liturgical history. For it is the rite of
the new capital of Constantine, the founding of which in 315
inaugurates the new era of Constantinian or imperial Chris-
tendom.
This is the period of the unifications of rites, when worship,
like a church government, not only evolved new forms, but
also let the weaker variants of the species die out, as the
church developed, via the creation of intermediate unities, into
a federation of federations of local churches, with ever-
increasing unity of practice within each federation, and ever-
increasing diversity of practice from federation to federation.
In other words what was once one loose collection of individ-
ual local churches each with its own liturgical uses, evolved
into a series of intermediate structures or federations (later
called patriarchates) grouped around certain major sees. This
process stimulated a corresponding unification and standardiz-
ing of church practice, liturgical and otherwise. Hence, the
process of formation of rites is not one of diversification, as is
usually held, but of unification. And what one finds in extant
rites today, is not a synthesis of all that went before, but rather
the result of a selective evolution the survival of the fittest— of
the fittest, not necessarily of the best.
4) In a further stage of liturgical history, liturgical families
continue to evolve, but now as already formed and hence iden-
tifiably distinct entities.4
THE WAYS OF LITURGICAL DEVELOPMENT
Now, if one compares these later liturgical developments to
Justin’s “first statum” of the Eucharistic service, one sees that
liturgical evolution respected this primitive outline in what I
have called the third period of liturgical growth, and violated it
in the fourth.
What we see happening in the third period, the period of the
unification of rites, is a filling in of the basic common outline of
the eucharist at the three “soft points”: (1) before the readings,
(2) between the Word’s service and the Eucharistic prayer, and
4
itself to concrete situations of times and places. No sooner had the vast
liturgical domains come in to being than they began to be divided up
smaller territories whose several forms of worship were adapted to
local needs”. (Comparative Liturgy, Westminster Md. 1958, pp. 18-19).
(3) at the communion and dismissal that follow this prayer.
Note that at the primitive liturgy these are the three points of
action without words: (1) the entrance into church, (2) the kiss
of peace and transfer of gifts, and (3) the fraction, communion,
and dismissal rites. What could be more natural than to de-
velop the ceremonial of these actions, cover them with chants,
and add to them suitable prayers? For one of the most common
phenomena in later liturgical development is the steadfast
refusal to let a gesture speak for itself.
This process often took the form of the permanent addition to
the service of rites and ceremonies which in origin [lend an
exclusively local scope to] the festive or stational rites of a
particular time and place. When added to the Eucharistic rite
as permanent integral parts, they inevitably lose their original
connection to the religious topography of their place of ori-
gin— and, hence, too, their original scope and meaning— and
assume a life independent of their past. This too is a common
occurrence in liturgical history. It is especially noticeable in
the rites derived from cities where liturgy was stational: Rome,
Jerusalem, and Constantinople, the three most important cen-
ters of liturgical diffusion in the period after Chalcedon (451).
As ceremonial and text rush in to fill the vacuum at the three
action points of the liturgy, thus overlaying the primitive
shape with a “second stratum” of introit, pre-anaphoral, and
communion rites, a contrary movement is provoked. The lit-
urgy, thus filled out, appears overburdened and must be cut
back. Now what is fascinating about this next step is the aban-
donment of the former respect for the primitive shape. For it is
universally verifiable that the elements thus reduced or sup-
pressed are never the later, secondary, often questionable ad-
ditions, but elements of the original core: the Old Testament
lessons, the responsorial psalmody between the readings, the
prayers after the readings, the kiss of peace, etc.5
THE BYZANTINE EUCHARIST
General Characterists
Now it is the last two periods of liturgical history that espe-
cially concern us here, and for Byzantine tradition they extend
from the end of the 4th century until the beginning of the
16th. From the end of the 4th, because the writings of John
Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople from 397-404, are our
first witness to its liturgical uses; to the beginning of the 16th
because the first printed edition of our liturgy appeared in
1526, and it was the printing press rather than the interven-
tion of bishop, synod, or liturgical commission, that was re-
sponsible for the final unification of liturgical usage in the
Byzantine East.
Of course one must not picture this unification in rigid, Triden-
tine categories, for in the East there is no such thing as a “typi-
cal” liturgical book, i.e. an official liturgical text obligatory on
5
Cf. A. Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy, op. cit., pp. 23ff— though B. is
wrong in some of the examples he gives.
all. Nor did the advent of printing mark the end of growth and
local adaption. But since then the developments are so easy to
trace that liturgical history ceases to be a scholarly problem
and so becomes relatively uninteresting except as a mirror of
local customs, minor variations on a already well-known
theme.
The Byzantine Divine Liturgy can be characterized as the Eu-
charistic service of the Great Church— of Hagia Sophia, the
cathedral church of Constantinople— as formed into an initial
synthesis in the capital by the 10th century, and then modified
by later monastic influence. This is not a truism, to say that the
Byzantine eucharist is the rite of Constantinople. There is
nothing “Roman” about much of the Roman rite, and nothing
“Byzantine” about the present Byzantine Divine Office, which
comes from the monasteries of Palestine, and replaced the
Office of the Great Church after Constantinople fell to the
Latins in the Fourth Crusade (1204).
To the Westerner onlooker, perhaps the most striking quality
of the rite that has evolved from the eucharist of the Great
Church is its opulent ritualization, a ceremonial splendour
heightened by its marked contrast to the sterile verbalism of so
much contemporary Western liturgy, where worship often
seems just words. The Byzantine mass ritual is structured
around a series of appearances of the sacred ministers from
behind the iconostasis or sanctuary barrier. The most impor-
tant of these appearances are the two solemn introits. The
minor introit or “Little Entrance” of the Word service, after the
opening rite of the enarxis, is a procession with the gospel, said
to symbolize Christ’s coming to us in the Word. The other,
major or “ Great Entrance” at the beginning of the Eucharistic
part of the service, right after the intercessory prayers follow-
ing the readings, is a procession bearing to the altar the gifts of
bread and wine prepared before the beginning of the liturgy. It
is said to prefigure Christ’s coming to us in the sacrament of
His Body and Blood. Both these fore-shadowings are fulfilled in
to later appearances, the procession of the deacon with the
gospel lectionary to the ambo for the reading; and the proces-
sion of the celebrant to distribute in communion the conse-
crated gifts, after they have been blessed in the Eucharistic
prayer.
Most of the ritual is taken up with such comings and goings.
But liturgy is not ceremonial. It is prayer. And so these cere-
monies are the ritual expression of a text. In the present-day
Byzantine rite the liturgical formulae comprise two distinct
levels. While the deacon stands outside the doors of the
iconostasis chanting the litanies and leading the people in
prayer, within the sanctuary a parallel service is preceeding.
Through the open doors of the icon screen the altar is distantly
visible, brilliantly lighted and enveloped in clouds of incense,
impressing upon the worshipper a sense of mystery and sa-
credness. Before this altar, within the holy of holies stands the
celebrant, his back to the people as he faces the East, reciting
in silence the priestly prayers. When the priest has to bless or
address the people he comes out. Inside he is talking to God.
This ritual pattern is the result of centuries of slow evolution,
in which many rites, at first added for a specific purpose later
lost their original scope, then decomposed under the pressure
of later changes and additions, acquiring in the process new
mystagogic interpretations often far removed from their ac-
tual historical roots.
The enarxis
There many ways in which one can approach the history of
how this came about. My one approach is structural and his-
torical, that is, I try to identify and isolate individual liturgical
structures or units, then trace their history as such, rather
than attempt to study the entire rite as a unit in each historical
period. For it has been my constant observation that liturgies
do not grow evenly, like living organisms. Rather, their indi-
vidual structures possess a life of their own. More like cancer
than native cells, they can appear like aggressors, showing
riotous growth at a time when all else lies dormant. Let us see
how this happened in the concrete.
We shall prescind from the elaborate Rite of the Prothesis or
preparation of bread and wine that precedes the liturgy. With
the exception of the Prothesis Prayer or prayer of offering, it
began to evolve only after the 8th century, lagerly as a result of
monastic influence.
More important is the enarxis that introduces the Liturgy of
the Word. Today the reading of the epistle is preceded by an
office of three antiphons, each with its litany and collect. The
minor introit takes place during the singing of the third anti-
phon. This entrance is also accompanied by a collect, the
Prayer of the Entrance, said outside the central doors of the
iconostasis before the procession enters to the altar. There
follow various troparia or refrains, and then the Tisagion chant
with its accompanying prayer, giving us the following struc-
ture.
Initial blessing
Litany and prayer I
Antiphon I
Litany and prayer II
Antiphon II
Litany and prayer III
Antiphon III with added troparia (refrains), entrance
procession, entrance prayer
Trisagion prayer and chant
Procession to the throne
Greeting: “Peace to all”
During the Trisagion the celebrants proceed to the throne
behind the altar for the readings. With this procession to the
throne we rejoin the primitive introit of the liturgy as de-
scribed in the homilies of Chrysostom at the end of the 4th
century the clergy enter the church together with the people,
and proceed directly to the throne in the apse. There the
bishop greets the people with “Peace to all”, then sits down for
the readings: no antiphons, no litanies, no prayers, nothing.
But by the time of our earliest manuscript of the Byzantine
liturgy, the 8th century codex Barberini 336,6 we already have
our enarxis almost as it is today. Where did it come from?
First of all. We can see at a glance that the enarxis is made of
up later, secondary additions to the liturgy, for its formulae are
all common to the liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil, which are
independent only from the prayer over the catechumens.7
Now any time we see common elements in two liturgies, it is
obvious that they went from one formulary to the other, or
were introduced to both simultaneously from some third
source after they had begun to share a common history as
variant liturgical formularies of the same local church, to
whose liturgical shape the both were thenceforth made to
conform.
a) The litany
Let us look at the liturgical units of this enarxis.8 We can dis-
pense immediately with the opening blessing; it does not ap-
pear until the 11th century.9 The initial litany is also out of
place. In our primitive shape such intercessions occur only
after the readings, thus safeguarding the priority of the divine
action in the order of service: Only after God speaks to us His
Word do we respond in psalmody and prayer. As a matter of
6
For the literature on this and other sources of the Byzantine liturgy,
see R. TAFT, The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts and other
Pre-anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Orientalia Chris-
tiana Analecta 200) Rome 1975: “Introduction” and “Index of Manu-
scripts”.
7
Some ancient Italian MSS fill in the enarxis of the Chrysostom formu-
lary with prayers from other liturgies. A. Jacob has traced the origins
of this local peculiarity, which formerly had led liturgists to suppose
that the Chrysostom formulary was once different from that of Basil in
its entirety. See A. JACOB, Histoire du formulaire grec de la liturgie de S.
Jean Chrysostome (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louvain 1968); “La
tradition manuscrite de la Liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome (VIIIe-XIIe
siècles)”, in: Eucharisties d’Orient et d’Occident (Lex Orandi 47) Paris 1970,
109-38; “L’evoluzione dei libri liturgici bizantini in Calabria e in Sicilia”,
in: Calabria bizantina. Vita religiosa e strutture ammnistrative (Atti del
primo e del seconda incontro di Studi Bizantini) Reggio Calabria 1974,
47-69; cf. TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., pp. xxxi-ii.
8
For a complete history of the Liturgy of the Word, see J. MATEOS, La
célébration de la parole dans la liturgie byzantine (Orientalia Christiana
Analecta 191) Rome 1971. Mateos’ study needs to be completed in cer-
tain details by the later work of Jacob (cf. previous note) in the MS
tradition. Two recent studies in English, C. KUCHAREK, The Byzantine-
Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Allendale, N.J. 1974; and M. M. SO-
LOVEV, The Byzantine Divine Liturgy. History and Commentary, Washing-
ton, D.C. 1970; are not reliable.
9
It first appears, I believe, in the Codex S. Simeonis Siracusani (c. 1030)
preserved for us in the Latin version of Ambrose Pelargus (Divina ac
sacra Liturgia sancti loannis Chrysostomi. Interprète Ambrosia Pclargo
Niddano, O.P.;Worms 1541, f. _iv°). On this source see TAFT, Great En-
trance, op. cit., pp. xxvii viii.
fact our litany was once found just before the transfer of gifts.
Its remains are still visible there in the vulgate recension of the
Slavonic books.10
But following a tendency observable in almost all liturgical
traditions, these intercessions were either suppressed or
moved up to the beginning of the liturgy of the Word. Thus, in
the 10-11th century sources of our liturgy we find this litany in
its original place before the transfer of gifts, and also after the
Little Entrance, just before the Trisagion, i.e. at the old begin-
ning of the liturgy, before the enarxis was added. By the end of
the 11th century it is found also before the antiphons, i.e. at
the new beginning. In the I2th century it disappears from its
original place in the prayers of the faithful; in the I3th it disap-
pears before the Trisagion, remaining only where we still find
it today.11
So our litany is really the original litany of the faithful of the
Byzantine mass. The two abbreviated litanies that accompany
the prayers of antiphons II and III are probably just a develop-
ment of the original oremus of the two collects they now ac-
company.
b) The antiphons
What about these three antiphons and their collects? Where
did they come from, and when were they added to the liturgy?
The when is easy: some time between 630 and 730 A.D. There is
no mention of them in the Mystagogy of Maximus Confessor
written about 630.12 As he describes it, the liturgy begins with
the entrance into church of the people with the bishop, fol-
lowed immediately by the readings. Now until at least the 11th
century the bishop was not present in church for the enarxis
but entered only at the Little Entrance.13 Obviously, then,
there was no enarxis in the time of Maximus. But just one cen-
tury later our next Byzantine liturgical commentary, the Histo-
ria ecclesiastica of Patriarch St. Germanus I (†733), does mention
the antiphon.14 So they first appear at the beginning of the 8th
century.
10
See A. STRITTMATTER, “Notes on the Byzantine Synapte”, in: Traditio
X (1954) 51-108; “A peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy found in Greek
Euchologies”, in: Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert
Mathias Friend, Jr., edited by K. WEITZMANN, Princeton, N.J. 1955, 197-
203.
11
Loc. cit. and MATEOS, Célébration, op. cit., pp. 29-31.
12
Ch. 9, PG 91, 688 89. On this and other commentaries on the Byzan-
tine liturgy see R. BORNERT, Les commentaires byzantins de la divine litur-
gie du VIIe au XVe siècle (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 9) Paris 1966.
13
Mateos’ treatment of the pontifical liturgy (Célébration, op. cit., pp.
40-41) needs to be corrected somewhat on the basis of later research.
See TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., pp. 267-9, and my review of Chr.
STRUBE, “Die westliche Eingangsseite der Kirchen von Konstantin-
opel”, in: OCP XLH (19/6) p. 300.
14
N. BORGIA (ed.) Il commentario liturgico di S. Germane Patriarca Costan-
tinopolitano e la versione latina di Anastasio Bibliotecario (Studi Liturgici I)
Grottaferrata 1912, p. 21. Cf. BORNERT, Les commentaires, op. cit., p. 162.
But this does not mean that they are a permanent fixture at
that time. Liturgies tend to be snobbish. They take their time
about accepting newcomers as permanent members. Even as
late as the zoth century the three antiphons had not yet won a
permanent place as a fixed part of every mass.15
Our main source for the history of how they did win it is the
10th century Typicon of the Great Church edited by Juan
Mateos, S.J. of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome.16 This
crucial document has provided the key to almost the whole
history of the Byzantine liturgy in the post-Justinian era. A
typicon is not used in the actual celebration of the liturgy, but
provides the directions for the correct use of the books that
are, indicating the proper of mass and office, and giving, like
the old ordines romani, detailed rubrics for special celebra-
tions that occur in the liturgical cycle.
Now in the 10th century typicon of Hagia Sophia we see that
the liturgy of New Rome, like that of Old Rome, was highly
stational in character. On many days in the church calendar
the liturgy was celebrated not just anywhere, but in some spe-
cially designated church. This church was the “station” of the
day, and on more solemn feasts the crowd would gather with
the clergy at some other sanctuary and process solemnly from
there to the stational church for the liturgy. During the proces-
sion an antiphonal psalm would be chanted. Upon arrival at
the station, the end of the antiphon would be signalled by in-
toning the Gloria patri that announces the conclusion of an-
tiphonal psalmody in almost every tradition, followed by the
final repetition of the antiphon or refrain, called the περισσή
or “appendix”. Sometimes a variant refrain would be substi-
tuted at the perisse.
The clergy recited the introit prayer before the doors of the
nave— not before the doors of the sanctuary chancel as now—
and then entered the church, followed by the people. Proceed-
ing past the great ambo in the center of the nave, they went
along the solea or walled-in processional way that extended
from the sanctuary to the ambo,17 and took their places at the
synthronon in the apse.
All this is almost the same as the opening of the contemporary
Roman stational mass described in the Ordo romanus primus
15
The history of the antiphons is given in detail by MATEOS, Célébra-
tion, op. cit., pp. 34-71.
16
J. MATEOS (éd.), Le typicon de la Grande Eglise. Ms. Sainte-Croix No. 40.
Introduction, text critique et notes, 2 vol. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 165-
6) Rome 1962-3.
17
On the solea and other aspects of the liturgical disposition of the
early Byzantine church, see T. MATHEWS, The Early Churches of Constan-
tinople: Architecture and Liturgy, University Park and London 1071 (cf.
“solea” in Index); S. G. XYDIA, “The Chancel Barrier, Solea and Ambo of
Hagia Sophia”, in: The Art Bulletin XXIX (1947) 1-24. MATEOS (Typicon II,
op. cit., p. 321) wrongly identifies the early solea with the sanctuary
platform, which is the solea in current Greek liturgical nomenclature.
Cf. TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., p. 79.
about 750 A.D. even to the entrance along a walled-in proces-
sional way, the so-called schola cantorum which Mathews has
shown to be an exact parallel to the old Byzantine solea.18 To
the best of my knowledge this surprising similarity between
two liturgies presently so different in structure and ethos has
never been noticed by the students of liturgy. It is but one
more indication of the communality of much in early liturgy,
showing again the validity of the comparative method of litur-
giology first formulated by Anton Baumstark (†1948) half a
century ago.19 I have already noted that the three base-
traditions— Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem— out of which
have come the only two universal rites of Christendom, the
Roman and the Byzantine, were all distinguished by their sta-
tional character. It is not an exaggeration to say that practi-
cally every addition to the Byzantine eucharist from Justinian
until the post-iconoclast period had its origin in the stational
rites of Constantinople. The antiphons will be our first exam-
ple.
The old typicon tells us that on some feasts, on the way to the
stational church, the stational procession would stop either in
the forum or in some other church along the processional
route for a rogation. On some days this prayer-service included
an office of three antiphons. After this rogation the procession
would continue on to the stational church, to the accompani-
ment of the usual processional antiphon.
But evidently the office of three antiphons was very popular,
because it soon became customary to celebrate it in church
before the liturgy on days when there was no stational proces-
sion. Here we see an example of a liturgical unit gradually de-
taching itself from the service in which it originated and be-
coming an integral part of another service.
Note however that these three antiphons celebrated in church
before non stational liturgies were a combination of the three
rogation antiphons with a fourth antiphon, the processional
antiphon to the church. For example, in the typicon for New
Year’s Day— September 1, at that time— there are two liturgies
prescribed, one in the Church of the Theotokos in Chalko-
prateia, one in Hagia Sophia.20 The one in Chalkoprateia was
stational preceded by an office of three antiphons in the fo-
rum, followed by the procession to Chalkoprateia for mass to
the accompaniment of another, fourth antiphon. But the lit-
18
M. ANDRIEU, Les ordines romani du haut moyen âge, II: Les textes (Ordines
I-XIII) (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, études et documents, fasc. 23)
Louvain 1960, pp. 74ff; T. MATHEWS, “An Early Roman Chancel Ar-
rangement and Its Liturgical Functions”, in: Rivista di archeologia cris-
tiana XXXVIII (1962) 73-95; G.G. WILLIS, “Roman Stational Liturgy”, in:
Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy (Alcuin Club Collections no. 50)
London 1968, 3-87; J. A. JUNGMANN, Missarum sollemnia, vol. I, part i, no.
8 (English edition, vol. I, pp. 67ff).
19
See his Vom geschichtlichen Werden der Liturgie (Ecclesia orans 10)
Freiburg B. 1923; and Comparative Liturgy, op. cit.
20
MATEOS, Typicon I, op. cit., pp. 2-11; Célébration, op. cit., pp. 37ff.
urgy in Hagia Sophia in memory of St. Stephen the Stylite be-
gins right there with an office of three antiphons. And at the
third antiphon two refrains, that of the saint, and that of the
fourth processional antiphon from the stational service of
Chalkoprateia, are both sung. What they have done is simply
fuse together the third antiphon of the devotional service with
the introit antiphon, probably because three antiphons, not
four, was the customary liturgical unit in the offices of the
Great Church. So the rogational office of three antiphons and
the introit antiphon are two different things, which explains
why today we have four orations— three antiphon prayers plus
an introit prayer— with only three antiphons.
Up until the 10th century the three antiphons were not a nec-
essary part of every liturgy. Even after this date the patriarch
still does not enter the church until the third antiphon, be-
cause this is the old introit of the liturgy.21 And even today
vigil masses in the Byzantine rite, in which mass is preceded by
vespers, have no antiphons at all but begin with the Trisagion.
It is said that in such masses, vespers replace the Liturgy of the
Word. They replace nothing, but are joined to the mass at its
old beginning, the Trisagion, thus illustrating Baumstark’s law
that older usages are preserved in more solemn seasons and
rites.22
Today the three antiphons have been reduced to a few scraps
of their original form, and the troparia after the third antiphon
have been so multiplied as to take on an independent existence
detached from the psalmody which they were originally des-
tined to serve as refrains. This exemplifies another common
development in liturgical history: the process whereby ecclesi-
astical compositions multiply and eventually suffocate the
scriptural element of a liturgical chant, forcing, in turn, the
decomposition of the original liturgical unit, so that what we
are left with is simply débris, bits and scraps of this and that, a
verse here, a refrain there, that evince no recognizable form or
unity until they are painstakingly reconstituted into their
original structures by piecing together the remaining scraps,
then filling in the blanks, sort of like doing a jig-saw puzzle
with only a tenth of the pieces.23 This is why the study of litur-
gical units and their mutual articulation within larger ritual
structures is so crucial in the reconstruction of pristine liturgi-
cal forms,
c) The Trisagion
We see another example of this in our next piece, the
Trisagion. Today it is chanted as follows:
Holy God, holy, mighty, holy, immortal, have mercy on
us (three times).
21
See note 12 above.
22
“Das Gesetz der Erhaltung des Alien in liturgisch hochwertiger Zeit”,
in: Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft VII (1927) 1-23, Comparative Liturgy, op.
cit., pp. 26 ff.
23
See TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., pp. 112 ff.
 Glory be to the Father... now and always and unto ages
of ages, amen.
Holy, immortal, have mercy on us.
Holy God, holy, mighty, holy, immortal, have mercy on
us.
From what we know of the structure of Byzantine antiphonal
psalmody, it seems that we have here the incipit and finale of
an antiphonal psalm, i.e. the opening triple repetition of the
complete refrain, then the concluding doxology, the
άκροτελεύτιον [i.e., the fragment ‘Holy immortal, have
mercy on us’], and final repetition of the refrain (perisse), with
the intervening psalm verses suppressed.24 Now we first hear
of the Trisagion in the 5th century, when it was apparently
used as a processional antiphon during stational services in
Constantinople.25 Early in the 6th century we see it at the be-
ginning of mass. This chant, then, is the remains of the origi-
nal, invariable introit antiphon of our mass, to which at a later
date first one, then three variable antiphons were appended.
So at the beginning of the 5th century our liturgy opened with
the entrance of the clergy and people into church without
ceremony or, apparently, accompanying chant. By the 6th
century this introit had been ritualized by the addition of an
element from the stational processions, an antiphonal psalm
with the Trisagion as its fixed refrain. About a century later,
undoubtedly as a result of further developments in the sta-
tional rites, all but the refrain of this antiphon was suppressed
in favor of a more recent stational antiphon that provided
more variety for this rapidly expanding rite.
Why wasn’t the original fixed refrain just suppressed, or re-
tained as an occasional variant? Probably because of its im-
mense popularity as testified to by the legends of its origins in
divine revelation, because it had become a liturgical element
common throughout the whole East, and because of the role it
played in the Monophysite controversy.
d) The ektene
One further element that entered the liturgy from the stational
services is the ektene or litany that immediately follows the
gospel. It is sometimes referred to in modern versions as the
“ecumenic” or “universal” prayer for all needs — i.e. the oratio
fidelium of the Byzantine mass. It is no such thing, as should be
obvious from its position before the dismissal of the catechu-
mens. Common prayer with their participation was excluded,
which is why they were first dismissed, and not because they
mustn’t receive communion, as is often thought. They were
also dismissed at non-eucharistic services, where there was no
risk of them going to communion. In our l0th century typicon
24
The akroteleution is the final clausula of the refrain, and was repeated
after the verses of the psalm; the perisse (“appendix”) is the final repe-
tition(s) of the refrain after the doxology that signals the end of the
psalm. See MATEOS, Célébration, op. cit., pp. i6ff.
25
Ibid. pp. 99-100, 112 ff.
this ektene or penitential litany was chanted after the gospel
in stational rogation services, and rubrics prescribe the same
practice after the gospel of the Liturgy of the Word on certain
days of the year.26 This can be taken perhaps as a remnant of a
previous stage of evolution when this litany was gradually
gaining a foothold in the mass, where it appears for the first
time in the 8th century codex Barberini 336.
Regressive Traits — The Pre-Anaphora
Meanwhile the regressive evolution whereby primitive ele-
ments were suppressed in favor of later additions is proceed-
ing. By the 8th century the Old Testament reading,27 the
prayers over the penitents,28 and elements of the psalmody
have been suppressed,29 and the prayer of blessing that con-
cluded the Liturgy of the Word in the time of Chrysostom has
been displaced.30 By the 11th century the litany of the faithful
has shifted forward.31
The disappearance from the Liturgy of the Word of its final
blessing illustrates another common liturgical development in
this period: the gradual blurring of the clear division between
the Liturgies of Word and Eucharist. The present prayers of the
faithful of the Liturgy of Basil are another example of this.
They are really prayers of preparation for the eucharist, and
certainly are not original to the Liturgy of the Word. In the
same process, the kiss of peace, formerly the conclusion of the
Word service,32 becomes detached from the concluding
prayers of the synaxis and moved to before the anaphora by
the addition of later ritual elements between the pax and the
end of the Liturgy of the Word.
The Pre-anaphora
These later elements are the pre-anaphoral rites that now pre-
cede the eucharistic prayer.33 They comprise:
The Cherubic Hymn
Prayer of the Cherubic Hymn (“No one is worthy...”)
26
MATEOS, Typicon II, op. cit., index: «ἐκτενή µεγάλη» p. 293.
27
MATEOS, Célébration, op. cit., p. 131.
28
This prayer is testified to by John Chrysostom (cf. F. VAN DE
PAVERD, Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiochia und Konstantinopel
gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts. Analyse der Quellen bei Johannes
Chrysostomos (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 187) Rome 1970, ρρ• 45jff,
467) but there is no trace of it in our liturgical MSS from the 8th cen-
tury on.
29
E.g. at the Trisagion and prokeimenon (MATEOS, Célébration, op. cit.,
pp. 106ff, 133-4, as well as at the koinonikon (see below, p. 376-3 77).
30
Chrysostom seems to indicate the presence of this prayer at the end
of the 4th century (VAN DE PAVERD, Messliturgie, op. cit., pp. 464, 467)
but it is not found in any Byzantine liturgical MSS.
31
See above, p. 362.
32
See TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., pp. 50-51, 375-78.
33
On the history of these rites, see ibid.
 Incensation
Transfer and deposition of gifts
Orate fratres dialogue
Litany and Prayer of the Proskomide
Kiss of Peace
Nicene Creed
The persistent attempt to interpret Eastern pre-anaphoral rites
in Western terms of “offertory” have vitiated all understanding
of what we are dealing with here. The primitive nucleus com-
mon to the Eastern and Western pre-anaphora was the simple,
unritualized transfer of gifts to the altar by the deacons. In
some Western liturgies this did evolve later into rites of offer-
ing. Attempts to read Eastern evidence in the same way have
proved fruitless. My own analysis of the formulae of the pre-
anaphora in the Eastern traditions has forced me to conclude
that the “offertory” paradigm is not the model to be used in
interpreting these rites. Ideas of offering do find expression,
especially in later prayers but they are not the dominant
theme. And in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom they find no
place whatever in the primitive layer of the rite. In the earliest
sources of this liturgy, we find only three elements:
1) the transfer, deposition, and covering of the gifts by the
deacons
2) an oration said by the priest
3) the Cherubic Hymn sung by the people during the whole
liturgical action.
It is probable that the deposition of gifts included an incensa-
tion of the altar, and that the prayer was preceded by a lavabo
and by a brief dialogue between the presiding bishop and his
concelebrating presbyters, similar to the Roman Orate fratres.
From this original simplicity the nature and scope of the Byz-
antine pre-anaphoral rites emerge. They form a twofold prepa-
ration for the anaphora:
1) the material preparation of altar and gifts
2) the spiritual preparation of the ministers by prayer, and of
the people by a chant evoking the dispositions appropriate to
the imminent eucharistie offering.
a) The Great-Entrance Procession
The material preparation of the gifts in the Byzantine tradition
has become highly ritualized into the Great Entrance proces-
sion, in which today even the presbyters take part. But this
must not be allowed to obscure its humble origins in the trans-
fer of gifts by the deacons, originally a material act of no ritual
import whatever. Formerly the Great Entrance was a true en-
trance into the church from outside, for the deacons had to
fetch the gifts from the sacristy or skeuophylakion, which in
Constantinople was not an auxiliary chamber inside the
church, but a separate edifice like the baptistry and campanile
of so many Italian churches.34 Hence, the Byzantine Liturgy of
the Eucharist, like the Liturgy of the Word, once began with an
introit into the church. In both cases the entrance later degen-
erated into a nonfunctional procession around the inside of the
church that ends where it begins, in the sanctuary. Here we
have a perfect example of rites which perdure, supported by
newly acquired symbolic meanings, long after they have be-
come detached from their original practical purpose.
b) Preparation of the Ministers
While the deacons were bringing in the gifts, the presiding
minister washed his hands, requested the prayers of his fellow
ministers, then together with them said the following Prayer of
the Proskomide:
Ο Lord God almighty, who alone are holy, who alone accept
the sacrifices of praise from those that call upon you with a
whole heart, accept also the prayer of us sinners, and bring us
to your holy altar, and enable us to present to you these gifts
and spiritual sacrifices for our own sins and for the faults of
the people, and make us worthy to find favor in your sight, so
that our sacrifice may be acceptable to you and so that the
good spirit of your grace may rest upon us and upon these
present gifts and upon all your people.
The prayer asks for three things:
1) that the ministers be conducted to the altar,
2) that they be enabled to offer there the eucharist
3) that they be made worthy so that this offering will be ac-
ceptable, and the Spirit come.
It is not a prayer of offering but a prayer of preparation for the
true offering, the anaphora. It is a prayer of accessus ad altare
in which the ministers pray God to make them worthy of the
ministry they are about to perform. It exists only in function of
what is to follow, a pattern also seen in the two prayers of the
faithful. In the first, the ministers pray for the grace to inter-
cede for their people, i.e. for the grace to say the intercessory
collect that immediately follows.
But since our pre-anaphoral oration is entitled “Prayer of the
Offering” (Εὐχή τῆς Προσκομιδῆς) it is almost always misin-
terpreted and mistranslated understandably so. Actually, this
is not the title of the prayer, but of the whole eucharistie rite
of which this prayer was but the first formula, a fact that was
later obscured by the addition of numerous other elements to
the pre-anaphora before this title.35
c) The Entrance Chant
While all this is going on, the people are chanting the Cherubi-
con,36 a refrain that was added to the liturgy under Justin II in
573-4 A.D. Today this troparion stands alone, but from what we
34
MATHEWS, Early churches, op. cit., pp. 13-18, 84-5, 87, 89, 58ff, 178.
35
See TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., pp. 352-55.
36
For a complete study of this chant see ibid. ch. 2.
know of the history of liturgical chant this cannot have been
its original form. In the early centuries there was no such thing
as a free-standing liturgical song, i.e. a non-scriptural composi-
tion sung independently. All early liturgical chant was psalm-
ody, and ecclesiastical songs had no independent liturgical
existence, but served only as refrains to be repeated after the
verses of a psalm. And in fact the historical evidence seems to
indicate that the Cherubicon was added to an earlier antipho-
nal psalm at the transfer of gifts, Psalm 23/4:7-10 with alleluia
as refrain.
So the Byzantine liturgy had an introit antiphon not only with
its first entrance, just like the Roman antiphona ad introitum;
it also had one with its second entrance, like the Roman an-
tiphona ad offertorium. The later degeneration of the psalm-
ody has obscured its original form, but the parallel in both
cases is exact.
The object of the chant, however, has often been viewed too
narrowly, because the misinterpretation of one word has ap-
peared to restrict its meaning to the entrance of the gifts. The
chant reads as follows.
We who mystically represent the Cherubim and sing the
thrice-holy hymn to the life-giving Trinity, let us lay aside all
wordly care to receive the King of All escorted unseen by the
angelic hosts. Alleluia. . .
The phrase “to receive the King of All” is usually taken to mean
“to welcome Christ entering now in the procession under the
symbols of bread and wine”. But υποδέχομαι means receive in
communion, as can be seen not only from Byzantine liturgical
terminology but also in the Protheoria (1055-63), the earliest
Byzantine commentary to interpret the phrase.37 So the chant
does not refer only to the procession, but is an introduction to
the whole eucharistic action from anaphora to communion. It
instructs the faithful that they who are about to sing the
thrice-holy hymn of the Cherubim (the Sanctus of the anaph-
ora) must lay aside all worldly care (Sursum corda) to prepare to
receive Christ (in communion).
A study of numerous other Eastern Hymns for the transfer of
gifts has confirmed this conclusion: they are not offertory
chants, nor merely processional antiphons, but are introduc-
tions to the whole eucharistie service, and serve to instill in
the faithful the sentiments appropriate to the action about to
begin. Thus understood, the Great-Entrance chant assumes a
broader, more balanced liturgical role, tempering the exagger-
ated symbolic importance assigned in the later medieval pe-
riod to the Great-Entrance procession itself. At the entrance we
indeed welcome the gifts, symbol of Christ— but only with a
view to their consecration and reception in communion.
37
The passage from the Protheoria is in PG 140, 441. The whole ques-
tion is discussed in TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., pp. 62-68.
d) Creed and Pax38
I do not intend to trace the origins of the numerous other,
lesser formulae that• have been added to the pre-anaphora
since the middle ages, but two older elements must be men-
tioned. The first, the creed, stands somewhat outside the scope
of these rites. It was added during the Monophysite crisis in
the 6th century, and drew with it some lesser formulae that
have obscured the second rite, the kiss of peace. This fraternal
greeting, an original member of the primitive shape, has since
the 11th century been exchanged only by the clergy. As we
mentioned previously, its original purpose was to conclude the
service of the Word.
Communion Rites
The third “soft point” of the eucharistic rite includes the rites
and prayers that follow the consecration of the gifts:
Litany and prayer
Our Father
Prayer of Inclination
Prayer of Elevation
Elevation: “Holy things for the holy”.
Chant: “One is holy. . .”
Κοινωνικόν (communio)
Manual acts (fraction, etc.)
Communion
Blessing with gifts: “O God, save your people and bless
your inheritance”.
Chant: “We have seen the true light...”
Gifts returned to altar, incensed.
“Always, now and forever, and unto ages of ages”.
Chant: “Amen. May our lips be filled. . .”
Gifts returned to altar of preparation.
Litany and Prayer of Thanksgiving.
It may seem strange to skip over what is clearly the most im-
portant prayer of the whole rite, the eucharistie prayer itself,
but the anaphora has undergone little ritual evolution, and the
textual modifications it exhibits would require a close philol-
ogical and literary analysis of the Greek text that is hardly
feasible here. So I shall pass directly to the communion rites
after mentioning that the anaphora of Chrysostom shows clear
signs of reworking in several places. The mere fact that there is
no command to repeat (“Do this in memory of me”), and that
38
Cf. TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., ch. II.
the commemoration of the dead precedes that of the living,39
is extraordinary and most problematic.
a) The Litany and Prayer before Communion
After the doxology that concludes the anaphora, there is a long
litany comprising two distinct sets of petitions. A similar litany
is found with the Prayer of the Proskomide, just before the
anaphora. A textual comparison of this litany with the parallel
litanies in the Liturgy of James and the Armenian liturgy
shows, I believe, that the second series of petitions, the so-
called αἰτήσεις (“demands”) in Byzantine terminology, is a
later addition, from the Divine Office.40
I have not yet made up my mind as to which of the two prayers
that now come before and after the Our Father is older, but it is
most probable that only one of them is original at this point of
the liturgy, which once followed the structure seen in the Ap-
ostolic Constitutions (VIII, 13, -3-14; ed. FUNK, I pp. 514-16):
anaphora, litany, prayer, “Holy things for the holy”. So from
comparative liturgy we can say that the Our Father and one of
the prayers are later additions, dating from the end of the 4th
century.41 And we know that the Elevation Prayer just before
the fraction, which is common to the liturgies of both
Chrysostom and Basil, was added much later.42
b) The Communion Antiphon
More problematic are the three chants that now accompany
communion. At present they are a complete structural mess,
39
See the work of the student G. WlNKLER, “Die Interzessionen der
Chrysostomusanaphora in ihier geschichtlichen Entwicklung”, in: OCP,
XXXVI (1970) pp. 302-3; “Einige Randbemerkungen zu den Interzes-
sionen in Antiochien und Konstantinopel im 4. Jahrhundert”, in: Ost-
kirchliche Studien, XX (1971) 55-61.
40
For the arguments, see TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit.. ch. 9.
41
The Our Father is not found in the eucharist of the earlier documents
such as the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 13, ed. Funk I, pp. 514-16) or
the homilies of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Horn. 16, 21-22, ed. TON-
NEAU-DEVREESSE, Studi e Testi 145, pp. 563-5). Our first positive evi-
dence of it seems to be Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 348), Myst. Cat. 5, 18.
Somewhat later Augustine says that “Almost the whole church now
concludes” the eucharistie prayer with the Lord’s Prayer (Ep. 149, 16,
CSEL 44, p. 362). Chrysostom witnesses to it in the eucharist at Con-
stantinople at the beginning of the 5th century (De capto Eutropio 5, PG
52, 396; cf. VAN DE PAVERD, Messliturgie, op. cit., pp. 526-7). For the
prayer after the Our Father in the Liturgy of Chrysostom, see MATEOS,
Célébration, op. cit., pp. 60, l69ff, 180-1. Mateos thinks that this Prayer of
Inclination was originally the final prayer of the faithful. Against him
one could argue that the prayer is similar to the parallel one in the
Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 13, 10 (PUNK I, p. 516); that it— or a simi-
lar prayer— is witnessed to for the Constantinopolitan eucharist by
Chrysostom (cf. VAN DE PAVERD, Messliturgie, op. cit., pp. 527-8); and
that a parallel formula is mentioned by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Horn.
16, 22, éd. TONNEAU-DEVREESSE, Studi e Testi 145, p. 565). So the
weight of comparative liturgy would seem to favor this prayer as the
original one between the anaphora and communion.
42
Cf. JACOB, Histoire du formulaire grec, cit., pp. 60-1 and part I passim.
which of course betrays their youth: primitive liturgy was tidy
if nothing else. Let us see if we can reconstruct their original
shape. We know that most rites had antiphonal psalmody at
the three “soft points” of the service, the introit, the offertory
or pre-anaphora, and the communion.43 Now we have already
established that the Byzantine Eucharist once had an antipho-
nal psalm at the lesser and probably also at the major introit,
so our strong presumption should be in favor of the same at
communion. And in fact we have concrete evidence of just
such a chant. According to the Chronicon paschale for the year
624, in that year under Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople
(610-38) a refrain was added to the koinonikon. Now today the
term koinonikon or communiο refers to a single psalm verse with
triple alleluia sung right after the response to the exclamation
“Holy things for the holy”, before the fraction. From the
Chronicle however, it is evident that in those days the koi-
nonikon included more than one verse of a psalm. The text
reads as follows:
In this year [624] in the month of Artemesius— May according
to the Romans— on the I2th indiction, under Patriarch Sergius
of Constantinople, it was then first introduced that after all
have received the Holy Mysteries, when the clergy are about to
return to the skeuophylakion the precious ripidia, patens and
chalices, and other sacred vessels; and after giving communion
from the side tables everything is brought back to the holy
altar; and finally, after chanting the final verse of the koi-
nonikon; this troparion is sung: “May our lips be filled with
your praise, Ο Lord....44
From this it is clear that:
1) the koinonikon was not just one psalm verse with alleluia as
refrain, but an entire psalm;
2) so the single verse given in the books today is just an incipit
indicating to the soloist the psalm to be chanted;
3) the refrain “May our lips be filled with your praise...” was
added as a variant périsse or concluding refrain to be chanted
after the doxology of the antiphonal psalm;
4) the phrase “Always, now and forever, and unto ages of ages,
amen” that the priest now sings to introduce this refrain is
simply the remains of that same doxology.
And in fact a study of the manuscript tradition reveals that all
of the intervening material we find today between the com-
munion verse and the remains of the doxology is a later addi-
tion not found in any early source. So what we have again, is
the débris of what was once an antiphon— its beginning and
end, with a lot of later free-floating bits and pieces added after
the original unit had come unstuck in the degenerative process
already observed with regard to the original antiphonal
psalmody at the Little and Great Entrances. Any time such
43
Cf. TAFT, Great Entrance, op. cit., pp. 83-4.
44
PG 92, 1001.
scraps of verse and chant pop up in liturgy, they are either the
débris of a degenerated liturgical unit, or detached elements
added in the later period when folks had forgotten what
psalmody was all about.
The Prayer of Thanksgiving after communion is parallel to the
postcommunio of the Roman mass. The accompanying litany,
like similar developments elsewhere in the Byzantine and
other traditions, is just an expanded oremus.
So one sees at communion a repetition of the same basic struc-
ture that emerged in the analysis of the other two “action
points” of the liturgy, the two entrances: the structure com-
prises a ritual action, covered by an antiphonal chant, and
concluded by a collect— just, as in the Roman rite. This illus-
trates once again, I believe, the usefulness of a structural ap-
proach in isolating the original shape and scope of our by now
rather cluttered liturgical rites.
The Dismissal
The conclusion of the liturgy is clear enough. It goes as follows:
“Let us depart in peace”.
“In the name of the Lord”.
Prayer Behind the Ambo
Ps. 112:2 (“Blessed be the name of the Lord...”) thrice.
Prayer in the Skeuophylakion
Blessing
Apolysis
The original final blessing prayer, the so-called “Prayer behind
the Ambo” (ὀπισθάμβωνος), was probably said from the great
.o0O0o
ambo in the center of the nave as the clergy processed down
the solea or processional path on their way out of the church
to the skeuophylakion at the end of the service. One more
prayer, the “Prayer in the Skeuophylakion”, was said in the
skeuophylakion at the consummation of the left-over gifts,
thus rounding off the liturgy just as it began, with a prayer
over the gifts in the sacristy.
What follows this prayer in today’s rite is the traditional end-
ing of the Byzantine monastic office, which was added to the
mass as a second conclusion, in the middle ages, because of a
more recent tendancy in Byzantine liturgical development to
shape all the services so that their beginning and end look
more or less alike. The Romans are doing somewhat the same
thing today. The only difference is that they have chosen as
their model the Liturgy of the Word, whereas the Byzantines,
under monastic influence, opted for the Palestinian monastic
office that came to hold sway throughout the Byzantine East
after the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in the Fourth Cru-
sade (1204).
By way of conclusion, let me anticipate a typical question: “We
have been observing the evolution of the most complex ritual
in Christendom. Who legislated it all?” The answer, of course,
is no one. The Eastern solution to the Western dilemma of ru-
bricism or anarchy is not canon law, nor the liturgical commis-
sion, nor the Congregation of Rites, but the supple continuity
of a living tradition. There may be a message here for us all.